coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
11.  In their capacity as doctors, the applicants are members of the National Health System (Εθνικό Σύστημα Υγείας) and are employed by the public hospital “O Evangelismos”.
12.  On 28 April 1994 they applied to the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal seeking to have set aside the hospital's refusal to pay them an allowance for overtime work, set at 1/65th of their basic salary. The sole purpose of this application was to challenge the lawfulness of the disputed administrative decision.
13.  Initially scheduled for 11 March 1996, the hearing was postponed seven times, one of these being at the applicants' request. It was eventually held on 22 November 1999. On 16 December 1999 the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal set aside the disputed administrative decision (decision no. 2684/1999).
14.  On 18 April 2000 the hospital lodged an appeal against that decision. Initially scheduled for 18 January 2001, the hearing was held on 18 October 2001, after four postponements. On 7 March 2002 the Third Division of the Supreme Administrative Court sent the case for examination by that court's seven-judge bench on account of the importance of a question concerning the way in which the document in dispute had been published (judgment no. 763/2002).
15.  On 6 February 2003, following the postponement of one hearing, the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal's decision. It held that the ministerial decree on which the applicants based their claim to receive an allowance for overtime work had not been published in due form and was therefore without foundation (judgment no. 307/2003).
16.  It appears from the case file that, in the meantime, the applicants had on several occasions brought actions in the administrative courts, seeking payment of various amounts in respect of allowances for overtime work allegedly owed by the public hospital in question. The total sum claimed by each applicant in this connection varied between 15,000 and 20,000 euros (EUR). It appears from the case file that these actions were dismissed by the domestic courts.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Pskov.
5.  He is a Chernobyl pensioner.
6.  On 10 February 2003 the Pskov Town Court of the Pskov Region (“the Town Court”) granted his claim against the Welfare Office and recovered arrears in respect of disability and food allowances in the amount of 22,742.64 Russian roubles (RUB) and in the amount of RUB 1,713 respectively. The Town Court held that as of 1 January 2002 the applicant had been entitled to a certain increase in his disability allowance, and that as of 1 July 2002 he had been entitled to yet another increase in disability and food allowances. The Town Court further held that as of 1 February 2003 the applicant was entitled to a monthly disability allowance in the amount of RUB 4,540.52 and to a monthly food allowance in the amount of RUB 544.80. Furthermore, the Town Court held that in future, the monthly disability and food allowances had to be increased in line with the minimum subsistence amount if its index of growth attained an inflation rate of 6%. The judgment acquired legal force on 21 February 2003.
7.  According to the Government, the judgment of 10 February 2003 was enforced in full. The final payment under that judgment was made in November 2006.
8.  The applicant submitted that the judgment of 10 February 2003 remained without enforcement in the part concerning the payment of a monthly food allowance.
4.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1982 respectively and live in Izmir.
5.  On 28 April 2001 the applicants were taken into police custody.
6.  On 30 April 2001 the applicants were brought before the investigating judge, who ordered their detention on remand.
7.  On 3 May 2001 the Izmir State Security Court public prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicants He accused the first applicant of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, and the second applicant of being a member of an illegal organisation.
8.  On 13 September 2001 the Izmir State Security Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to ten months’ imprisonment and a fine.
9.  On 6 December 2001 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion on the merits of the appeal. He advised that the appeal be rejected and that the first-instance judgment be upheld.
10.  On 24 January 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance court’s judgment on the ground that the applicants should have been sanctioned under Article 169 of the Criminal Code for aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation.
11.  On 16 May 2002 the Izmir State Security Court adhered to the reasoning of the Court of Cassation and convicted the applicants pursuant to Article 169 of the Criminal Code.
12.  On 13 November 2002 the Principal Public Prosecutor submitted his written opinion on the merits of the case and stated that the Court of Cassation should uphold the judgment of the State Security Court.
13.  On 28 November 2002, the Court of Cassation, in conformity with the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor, upheld the first instance judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Bag.
5.  In 2000 the applicant divorced her husband. The ex-spouses had an agreement about the placement of their son with the applicant. However, on 20 August 2002 the ex-husband took the son with him on a trip and did not return him to the applicant. Despite several enforcement fines imposed on the father, the applicant’s custody was restored only on 27 March 2006.
6.  Meanwhile, on 11 October 2002 the father introduced an action requesting custody of the child.
7.  On 20 April 2005 the District Court, after having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, adopted a decision, changing the child’s placement and granting custody to the father. On appeal, on 1 September 2005 the Regional Court quashed this decision.
8.  In the resumed proceedings, on 23 June 2006 the District Court, after having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, again found for the father.
9.  On 8 February 2007 the Regional Court upheld this decision and ordered the applicant to surrender the child to the father. This decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 12 March 2007.
4.  The applicants were born in 1944 and 1946 respectively and live in Ufa, the Republic of Bashkortostan.
5.  The applicants are entitled to a supplementary allowance to their pensions as former municipal officials. In 2001-2002 the allowance was not paid to them. The applicants brought several sets of proceedings against the local social security office to recover the underpayments. The Penzhinskiy District Court of the Koryakskiy Autonomous Region granted the applicants' claims.
6.  Thus, on 14 January 2002 the first applicant was awarded 26,754 Russian roubles (RUB); on 4 February 2002, RUB 20,037.72; on 5 September 2002, RUB 19,317.35; on 26 November 2002, RUB 18,655.80; and on 7 April 2003, RUB 18,037.16. The judgments were not appealed against and became final ten days after the delivery.
7.  On 14 January 2002 the second applicant was awarded RUB 39,516.77; on 4 February 2002, RUB 29,449.32; on 5 September 2002, RUB 25,852.39; on 12 September 2002, RUB 11,694.56; and on 7 April 2003, RUB 26,259.90. The judgments were not appealed against and became final ten days after the delivery.
8.  In January 2003 all the judgments, except for the judgments of 7 April 2003, were enforced. According to the applicants, the judgments of 7 April 2003 were enforced in July 2005.
5.  The applicants live in Kemerovo. Mrs Braga died on 17 May 2007.
6.  On 23 December 1999 the Tsentralniy District Court of Kemerovo granted the applicants’ claim against the Kemerovo Town Council and held that the Council should provide Mrs Braga with a two-room flat, Mrs Kiryushkina with a two-room flat and Mr Timofeyev with a one-room flat.
7.  On 16 March 2000 the Kemerovo Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
8.  By letter of 5 April 2000, the Kemerovo Town Council informed the bailiffs that the applicants had been placed on the waiting list. By letter of 5 May 2000, the Council told Mrs Kiryushkina that there existed a waiting list for enforcement of judicial decisions requiring provision of flats and that the applicants had been assigned numbers 61 to 63 on the waiting list.
9.  The applicants applied to the District Court, seeking to have the operative part of the judgment amended so as to receive the market value of the flats.
10.  On 23 May 2001 the Tsentralniy District Court refused their application because the enforcement proceedings were still pending and because they had in the meantime advanced by thirty positions on the waiting list. On 19 July 2001 the Kemerovo Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal.
11.  By letter of 9 November 2001, the Kemerovo Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicants that the enforcement proceedings had not been carried out in accordance with the Enforcement Act and that the bailiffs had been directed to remedy the violations.
12.  On 2 June 2005 the applicant Mr Timofeyev received a one-room flat in Kemerovo under a social-tenancy agreement. On 23 June 2006 he privatised the flat and registered his title to it.
13.  On 10 March 2005 the Town Council offered the applicants Mrs Braga and Mrs Kiryushkina two vacant two-room flats in Kemerovo. They did not accept the offer, indicating their wish to receive new flats. On 30 September 2005 two one-room flats in a new block of flats were offered to them but they refused the offer because the flats had only one room each. On 22 May 2007 Mrs Kiryushkina agreed to move into a two-room flat. Following the death of Mrs Braga, on 29 May 2007 her son agreed to a one-room flat.
5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Moscow.
6.  On 22 September 1997 the applicant was convicted on several counts of fraud and sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment and a fine. On 28 October 1998 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the conviction, finding that the applicant’s guilt had not been proved.
7.  The applicant sued the Ministry of Finance for damages incurred through the unlawful criminal prosecution.
8.  On 4 April 2001 the Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow granted his claim in part and awarded him 23,400 Russian roubles, payable by the Ministry of Finance within one month. On 13 June 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
9.  On 11 October 2001 a writ of execution was issued.
10.  On 11 March 2003 the applicant sent a complaint to the Ministry of Finance about non-enforcement of the judgment. No reply was received.
11.  On 18 March 2006 the Ministry of Finance paid the judgment debt to the applicant.
4.  The applicants were born in 1955, 1935 and 1950 respectively and live in Hatay.
5.  On various dates, the applicants bought plots of land (nos. 1233, 1230 and 1162 respectively) near the coast in Hatay. They each built a house there[1].
6.  In 1995 the Treasury filed an action before the Samandağ Court of First Instance, requesting the annulment of the applicants’ title deeds to the land on the ground that they were located within the coastline.
7.  On 16 December 1999 (nos. 40/02 and 41/02) and 9 December 1999 (42/02), the Samandağ Court of First Instance, relying, particularly, on expert reports, upheld the request of the Treasury and annulled the title deeds of the applicants to the plots of land. In its decisions, the court held that, pursuant to domestic law, coasts could not be subject to private ownership and that, therefore, the applicants could not rely on the argument that they had acted bona fides or on the fact that they had constructed buildings on the site.
8.  On various dates the applicants appealed. In their petitions they submitted, inter alia, that the right to property - a human rights norm - was protected under the constitution and the domestic law, and that the domestic courts had deprived them of their property rights without proper examination and without a payment of compensation. On 3 October 2000 their appeals were dismissed by the Court of Cassation.
9.  On various dates the applicants requested the Court of Cassation to rectify its decision. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ requests on 2 May 2001 (nos. 40/02 and 42/02) and 19 April 2001 (no. 41/02). These decisions were served on the applicants on 6 June 2001 (nos. 40/02 and 42/02) and 23 May 2001 (no. 41/02).
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Pécs.
5.  On 4 September 1998 the Nagyszokoly Municipality brought an action against the applicant before the Tamási District Court, seeking the annulment of a real estate sales contract. The District Court held several hearings and obtained the opinion of two experts.
6.  On 29 May 2000 the court discontinued the proceedings and transferred the case to the Tolna County Regional Court, because the increased value of the applicant’s counterclaims brought the dispute within the jurisdiction of that court.
7.  After two hearings, on 5 October 2000 the Regional Court found for the plaintiff. On 2 November 2000 the applicant appealed.
8.  On 15 October 2002 the Supreme Court’s appeal bench upheld the Regional Court’s judgment. This decision was only served on the applicant on 18 July 2003. On 19 November 2003 she submitted a petition for review.
9.  On 1 September 2004 the Supreme Court’s review bench dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s petition for review as being incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure. It applied section 270(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force at the material time, according to which a review of the substantive unlawfulness of final decisions was only admissible if it was considered necessary for the harmonisation or development of the application of the law.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 lives in Voronezh.
5.  She is entitled to welfare payments for her child. In 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the regional welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.
6.  On 14 February 2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant 8,736.32 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on 25 February 2000. The enforcement proceedings commenced.
7.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings referring to the lack of funds at the defendant’s disposal.
8.  On 29 July 2005 the applicant received the amount due to her pursuant to the judgment.
5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Novocherkassk, a town in the Rostov Region. He is a retired military officer.
6.  On 10 August 2004 the applicant brought proceedings against the Military Service Commissariat of Novocherkassk (Военный комиссариат г. Новочеркасска – “the Commissariat”) seeking to recover his pension arrears from January 1995 to March 1998 to take account of the increase of the minimum monthly wage.
7.  On 15 September 2004 the Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him 261,343.87 roubles (RUB) in arrears. On the applicant’s request the court held that the judgment should be enforced immediately since it concerned the applicant’s main source of income and was of considerable importance for the applicant’s financial situation. The Commissariat did not appeal against the judgment and on 25 September 2004 it became final.
8.  On 12 October 2004 the applicant’s representative submitted the copy of the judgment and the writ of execution to the Social Welfare Office of the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region.
9.  On 24 February 2005 the enforcement proceedings were opened. In the same month the applicant was informed that the sums awarded to him could not be paid as the Commissariat was conducting an examination of his case.
10.  On 19 September 2005 the Commissariat filed an application for supervisory review of the judgment of the Novocherkassk Town Court of 15 September 2004, referring to the lack of grounds in domestic law for increasing the applicant’s pension, and asked for a stay of enforcement.
11.  On 9 December 2005 the Rostov Regional Court examined the above application and remitted the case for examination on its merits by the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court.
12.  On 22 December 2005 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15 September 2004 and remitted the case to the Oktyabrskiy District Court for a fresh consideration. It concluded that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law and that the matter should have been examined by a district court rather than by a town court.
13.  On 20 March 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don dismissed the applicant’s claim.
4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Khabarovsk.
5.  Since 1975 the applicant and his family had been living in a dilapidated dwelling. In 1995 the police refused to certify his residence at that address.
6.  On 12 July 1999 the Industrialniy District Court of Khabarovsk granted the claim by the applicant and three family members against the Khabarovsk Town Council and held that the Town Council should provide them with one or more comfortable flats having an aggregate surface of no less than 12 sq. m per each family member. On 28 September 1999 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
7.  On 26 November 1999 enforcement proceedings were instituted. On 10 March 2000 the proceedings were suspended for six months at the request of the Town Council. On 28 February 2001 a further suspension was granted for an indefinite period of time until such moment as a flat of no less than 48 sq. m had become available. The latter decision was quashed on 30 December 2002.
8.  On 27 January 2003 the Town Council offered three flats to the applicant and his family members. They rejected the offer on the ground that two of the flats did not meet the sanitary standards.
9.  The applicant and his family members asked the court to amend the operative part of the judgment and order the Town Council to pay them the market value of the flat(s). On 23 May 2003 the Industrialniy District Court rejected their request, finding that they had unreasonably refused the three flats which the Town Council had offered them. On 1 July 2003 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal.
10.  On 8 September 2003 the Khabarovsk Town Council asked the court to discontinue enforcement proceedings on the ground that the applicant and his family had unreasonably turned down their offer. On 22 September 2004 the Industrialniy District Court rejected the Town Council’s request. It found that, pursuant to the experts’ report of 27 January 2004, the flats offered by the Town Council did not meet the sanitary and technical requirements. On 2 November 2004 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal.
11.  On 23 July 2005 the Town Council made a new offer of two flats to the applicant and his son. The son accepted the offer but not the applicant because the flat was in a state of disrepair.
12.  On 11 August 2006 the applicant accepted the flat after the repairs had been carried out.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Slovenské Darmoty, Slovakia.
5.  On 15 June 1992 some of his relatives brought an action against the applicant seeking termination of their common ownership of a house. The applicant brought counterclaims which he subsequently modified several times.
6.  In the course of the first-instance proceedings, the applicant challenged, in vain, the Budapest II/III District Court for bias, arguing that the President of the court – who was not sitting on the bench hearing the case – and the plaintiffs’ lawyer were sisters-in-law.
7.  At the hearings on 20 October 1992 and 14 March 1996 Judge E., who was in charge of the case, instructed the plaintiffs to complete their action in a comprehensive form. Subsequently, the case was assigned to Judge H.
8.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of three experts, on 3 May 1999 the District Court ordered the auction of the property at issue and determined the parties’ respective shares of the sale price.
9.  The applicant appealed to the Budapest Regional Court. In the course of the second-instance proceedings, his two further motions for bias – submitted against the Regional Court’s bench hearing the case – were unsuccessful.
10.  After having obtained a further expert opinion, on 12 December 2000 the Regional Court upheld in essence the District Court’s judgment. It finally set the minimum price for the house in question at 27 million Hungarian forints (HUF).
11.  On 25 February 2002 execution was ordered. The house in question was auctioned for HUF 41.8 million on 25 April 2002.
12.  On 26 November 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review. The decision was served on the applicant in February 2004.
4.  The applicant, a gynaecologist, was born in 1956 and lives in İzmir.
5.  In the course of an investigation into the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal armed organisation, the applicant’s name was mentioned by a few detainees suspected of membership of that organisation and a convicted confessor (itirafcı)[1] as having provided assistance to that organisation.
6.  On 19 October 1999, at around 6.30 p.m., the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody at his medical practice. The applicant claims that he was arrested in a humiliating manner, in front of his staff and patients, and that he was sworn at and beaten in the police car.
7.  On 20 October 1999 the applicant’s house and medical practice was searched. The applicant claims that the police officers continued to swear, threaten and humiliate him on this occasion.
8.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s detention in police custody was first prolonged, on 21 October 1999, for an additional two days by the prosecutor and later prolonged, on 23 October 1999, for an additional three days by a judge at the State Security Court.
9.  The applicant alleges that, while he was in police custody, he was ill‑treated. In particular, he complains of having received electric shocks, of having been suffocated, and of having been beaten and threatened. He also alleges that, during the first three days of his detention, he had been deprived of food and medication and prevented from sleeping.
10.  On 25 October 1999 the applicant was heard first by the public prosecutor and later by a judge at the İzmir State Security Court. The latter ordered his release from custody.
11.  Following the applicant’s complaint, the İzmir public prosecutor instigated an investigation into the events. On 26 November 1999 the İzmir public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officers at the anti‑terror branch of the İzmir Security Directorate. In its decision the prosecution noted that none of the persons put forward as witnesses by the applicant were able to confirm the applicant’s version of events, that the applicant was unable to identify the alleged perpetrators and that none of the medical reports, dated 19 October 1999, 23 October 1999 and 25 October 1999 save for one dated 11 November 1999, i.e. fifteen days after the events, noted any physical findings of ill-treatment. The applicant did not object to this decision.
12.  The criminal proceedings brought against the applicant before the İzmir State Security Court for aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation ended on 23 May 2000 with his acquittal.